Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202125998)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125998

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

20 May 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The landlord’s handling of
    1. Cyclical maintenance works.
    2. Repairs to the communal doors.
    3. Response to a request for the relocation of a letterbox.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
    1. Complaint handling.
    2. Record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder since 28 March 2003 and lives in a 2 bed second floor flat. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The resident says she reported issues concerning cyclical works, door repairs and moving a letterbox since 2018, 2019 and 2020, respectively. The landlord says the cyclical works were carried out in 2022 and new door systems were put in place in 2023. It is considering the relocation of the letterbox.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 3 June 2021 about the rear door saying for over a year it had been a risk to the vulnerable and some women having to walk through a “dark car park”. She also expressed her frustration with the progression of other outstanding issues (front door, cyclical works, and letterbox relocation).
  4. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 21 June 2021 as follows:
    1. It apologised for a delay in the response.
    2. It upheld the complaint stating the new door system was under a section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 consultation (section 20) and it would update all residents with a works timetable.
    3. The resident’s housing officer would be able to update her on the door repairs and it apologised for the delays and inconvenience.
    4. It had arranged an inspection on 29 June 2021 to inspect the matters raised which were fell outside the cyclical works and which were due to take place in the current financial year. It recommended that she could contact its repairs line to obtain an update following the inspection.
    5. Training needs had been identified following her experience and been acted on.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied. On 1 June 2022 she complained she has not received an update with a works timetable about the works door system. She also said she was unclear if the repairs inspection had taken place. In the meantime, she said the rear door and intercom system was unrepaired; the letterbox had not been moved; and there had been no cyclical maintenance since 2012. The landlord has stated that while it should have dealt with the June 2022 complaint as a new complaint with a new stage 1 response, on this occasion it was dealt with as an escalation of its original stage 1 response. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 9 January 2023 after this Service’s initial intervention on 11 October 2022 as follows:
    1. The cyclical works were complete and only the flooring was outstanding with the carpet and matting to be completed “shortly”.
    2. Its surveyor said the letterbox should not be moved as it was “built into the fabric of the building”.
    3. As the communal door renewal was part of the section 20 process, it was exempt from its complaints process. However, it did confirm it was chasing estimates after a notice of intention was issued in December 2020.
    4. It did not uphold the stage 1 management complaint stating it had not found any service failures at stage 1. However, it upheld the following:
      1. It should have told the resident at stage 1 the section 20 complaints process was exempt from its complaints process.
      2. Cyclical works issues resulting in the floor renewal being outstanding.
      3. The letterbox could not be moved.
    5. The resident was offered compensation of £310 compensation (£160 for time and trouble and £150 for poor complaint handling).
  6. The resident confirmed her acceptance of the compensation on 17 January 2023.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 19 March 2023 saying the repair were outstanding; repairs were subject to lengthy delays; and her mental health was impacted. She wanted the landlord to resolve the repairs and compensate her. The landlord informed this Service on 13 November 2023, after reviewing its actions, it wanted to offer a further £500 to the resident for poor complaint handling (£200) and time and trouble (£300). It made the offer to her on 16 April 2024, and she accepted it on 17 April 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident says the issues which are the subject of her complaint go back a number of years (eg letterbox since 2020). Whilst neither this Service nor the landlord dispute that this may be the case, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering matters raised in the 6 months prior to the resident making a formal complaint. This Service encourages residents to raise matters as formal complaints with their landlord in a timely way, to ensure that both parties can clearly recollect the events and provide appropriate supporting evidence. Therefore this determination will only consider matters raised from 2 December 2020 onwards in line with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme.

The landlord’s handling of cyclical maintenance repairs

  1. The lease says the landlord will “repair redecorate and renew” the common parts defining the “common parts” as “for use in common by occupiers of dwellings in the Building” (eg entrance porch and letterboxes in entrance porches).
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (section 11) requires the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property as well as the common parts of a building (eg entrance ways). The landlord must complete repairs within a reasonable time.
  3. The landlord’s repairs guide for leaseholders states it is responsible for repairs to the “structure and outside of your home” (eg communal entry phones) setting out 3 repair priorities:
    1. Emergency repairs within 24 hours.
    2. Routine repairs within 28 days.
    3. Major routine repairs within 3 months or as part of our planned programme of works (eg painting communal areas).
  4. The landlord’s planned investment policy says cyclical maintenance works (eg communal decoration works) will be carried out every 6 years subject to pre-condition surveys and specific lease terms. It states it is committed to providing a “high quality, well managed” cyclical maintenance service.
  5. The landlord’s planned investment policy says cyclical maintenance works will be carried out approximately every 6 years, but the evidence provided does not show when the works were last done. The resident told this Service she raised this issue with the landlord in 2018 and her view is the cyclical works were last carried out in 2011. In April 2021, she said she was concerned the “building has fallen into disrepair” and as a leaseholder, there was a financial impact for “poor maintenance”.
  6. The landlord arranged an independent inspection on 27 July 2020 which recommended the scope of works (eg painting surfaces, cleaning, and associated repairs). While the resident was told in January 2021 the cyclical decoration works would take place in the 2021-2022 financial year, the landlord issued a notice of intention (notice) on 8 April 2021 for the proposed cyclical works. The evidence provided shows an extended period from July 2020 to completion of these works.
  7. This Service has relied on wider evidence to confirm the completion of the cyclical works as follows:
    1. An internal landlord email confirming the works were completed on 21 June 2022 and signed off on 25 October 2022.
    2. The stage 2 outcome which stated the cyclical works were complete and the flooring was due to be completed “shortly”.
    3. The resident’s email of January 2023 to the landlord stating the building was painted in 2022, but the reason for the delays was unclear.
  8. The evidence provided does not include the on site and post inspections records for the cyclical works. The absence of this critical evidence is unacceptable and means we are unable to consider issues such as delays, if the works met the consultation specification, and the landlord’s compliance with its policies.
  9. The landlord has informed us the pandemic led to a hold on “scheduled non-emergency programmed works” and supply chain delivery issues meant outstanding works were rescheduled. On 1 June 2020, the Government issued guidance concerning the Covid-19 pandemic, which stated “where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs, as well as any planned internal works.” On 6 January 2021, a 4-step process was introduced to ease restrictions starting 8 March 2021 with most legal limits being lifted on 19 July 2021. During the 2021-2022 financial year, most restrictions had been lifted and while it is accepted the pandemic and delivery issues may have impacted the works, the landlord has not provided evidence to confirm how, when and for how long the works were affected.
  10. The landlord says leaks meant the works were delayed. The evidence shows a roof leak in April 2021; missing roof slates, in February 2022 (with no indication of a leak); and a roof leak in March 2023. While the timing of the April 2021 leak suggests the start of the cyclical works (excluding flooring) may have been affected, the evidence does not show it substantially held up the works. The works were completed (excluding flooring) 3 months after the 2021-2022 financial year timeframe given to the resident. The evidence also does not show it updated her of a new timeframe.
  11. While the resident was informed works would be completed in the 2021-2022 financial year, the cyclical works and the flooring were respectively completed 3 months and 11 months afterwards. The evidence shows the resident was not updated of new timeframes. She regularly raised the cyclical works with the landlord and the delay would have led to frustration for her. While it has apologised for its failings and offered some compensation, the offer has not been proportionate to the inconvenience caused to the resident. Overall, given the delays in the works, the Ombudsman finds maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal doors

  1. While it falls outside the investigation timeframe, the resident sent the landlord at least 6 emails in 2020 about the rear door and lock, including a report of intruders. Over the investigation period, she reported issues with both the front door (eg intercom issues reported on 7 January and 1 June 2022) and rear door (eg handle and lock were broken causing issues with closing reported in February 2022). It is noted other residents also reported the doors.
  2. The landlord’s repairs guide says it is responsible for the communal entry phone. The evidence does show work orders were raised for front door intercom issues (eg 23 June and 1 August 2022) but does not show when it resolved the repairs. The landlord is also responsible for the repair of the front and rear doors. The wider evidence does show repairs were carried out to the rear door (eg December 2020 and June 2021) but does not set out a completion date for the works. This means this investigation cannot consider the landlord’s responsiveness to repairs and compliance with its responsive repairs timeframe.
  3. There are issues around the way repairs were conducted. For example, on 21 December 2020, the resident said for 5 months residents could not use the rear door from the adjoining car park. The landlord replied saying it had repaired the rear door, so it was “functional in the event of a fire” from the inside but not the outside due to “ongoing ASB”. It said it was aware of the inconvenience but had limited options until the door was renewed. The evidence also shows the resident acknowledged receipt of keys on 4 June 2021 after almost 1 year without rear door access. During this time, she said residents had to walk through a dark carpark causing safety concerns. While it is accepted the back door may have been subject to vandalism, it was inappropriate to deny residents rear door access, from the carpark, for a prolonged period as the section 20 works to replace the door had not been timetabled and the security lighting in the car park was inadequate at the time.
  4. The landlord says the door works were completed on 14 September 2023. The section 20 consultation for the replacement doors, originally begun in December 2020, was restarted in 2023, for reasons including staff turnover, re-tendering of maintenance contracts in 2022 and an internal restructure. The original notice of intention expired on 12 May 2021 and therefore it was another 28 months before the doors were replaced. While the reasons for the delay are unfortunate, it did not absolve the landlord of its ongoing duty to resolve the door issues. The evidence shows the temporary repairs were causing distress, security concerns and inconvenience for the resident. The delay was unacceptable and put the resident at a detriment.
  5. The evidence of repairs, including temporary repairs to the rear door are limited. The evidence shows the resident requested updates and reported the door issues regularly and she has told this Service the delays with resolving the door issue had an impact on her mental health with “no end in sight”. While the landlord acknowledged failings and apologised for the inconvenience, it failed to properly address or offer a remedy proportionate to the significant impact to the resident, and the apology offered was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. This amounts to maladministration by the landlord.

Landlord’s response to a request for the relocation of a letterbox

  1. The landlord and resident have told this Service she requested a free standing letterbox in the communal area due to residents experiencing thefts. The evidence shows the landlord told her on 21 December 2020 the letterbox would be moved in 2021 once it had new location details and again in September 2021, it said it had taken steps to renew a year old contractor’s quote for the relocation. After the resident’s complaint escalation in June 2022, in autumn 2022, the landlord inspected area again for the move. This Service has not seen the 2022 inspection record, but an email dated 23 December 2022 says the letterbox would not be moved as “to relocate, a new building to the house the letterboxes would need to be constructed”. The landlord informed this Service in November 2023, in view of the resident being told in 2020 that the letterbox would be moved, new quotes are being obtained to install the letterbox internally and “promptly”, subject to the views of residents. It is not clear if the letterbox has been moved.
  2. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake. The evidence does not show the original inspection which led to the decision in 2020 to relocate the letterbox and what, if anything, had changed prior to the further inspection in 2022. While the letterbox was not in the entrance hall, and therefore, fell outside the landlord’s responsibility under the lease and section 11, it was entirely reasonable for the resident to rely on its assurance the letterbox would be moved. The decision not to move it, in the stage 2 outcome, was issued 2 years after being told the letterbox would be moved. The landlord’s latest decision to move the letterbox means it will have taken it over 3 years to move the letterbox.
  3. The resident has informed this Service of her frustration with the landlord’s decision around moving the letterbox. The evidence shows the resident regularly contacting the landlord from 2020 to 2022 for updates about the letterbox. We have not seen evidence of the landlord acknowledging or apologising to her for its failings or the detriment due to its reversal of decision in 2023. In view of the landlord’s acceptance of its mistake and the steps now being taken to correct it by moving the letterbox, this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to a request for the relocation of a letterbox.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a two-stage complaint process with responses being issued within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It states if it is unable to meet its response timeframes it will keep its customers informed and agree new timeframes. It states “planned section 20 works” are excluded from its complaints process.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states when compensation will or might be paid, and values (eg for service failure, time and trouble and poor complaint handling). A “tariff of discretionary compensation payments” document includes a table for calculating compensation with values ranging from “low failure” to “high failure”.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued 12 working days after the complaint was received rather than 10, which was not in line with its policy timeframes.
  4. While the stage 1 response upheld the resident’s complaint along with appropriately apologising for delay and inconvenience, its response was vague. For example, it said it would be in touch, at an unspecified time, with all residents to provide updates about the door system and she herself could contact her housing officer for an update. Further, in terms of the repairs inspection on 29 June 2021, the resident was again told to call for an update after the inspection. The stage 1 was a missed opportunity to proactively put in place an action plan, provide a repair timeframe, and to reassure the resident that it took her concerns seriously. Furthermore, the onus to follow up was placed on the resident and this was unreasonable.
  5. The resident complained again on 1 June 2022. The landlord has acknowledged this should have been treated as a new complaint and not escalated to stage 2. The purpose of a stage 2 response is to carry out a further investigation to review a stage 1 response. Omitting stage 1 significantly limited the investigation into this element of complaint. This was poor and not in compliance with its policy.
  6. While the resident’s complaint of 1 June 2022, was appropriately acknowledged on the same day, the evidence shows the response timeframe was extended at least 13 times between June and December 2022. The evidence shows occasions when the resident was informed of a potential date for the stage 2 response (eg 25 October and 8 November 2022), but other occasions when she was not given a new response timeframe (eg 30 June and 11 October 2022). The evidence also fails to show call notes or written communication with the resident on all occasions when the timeframe was extended (eg 30 June, 28 July, 26 August, 11 and 28 September 2022). It failed to comply with its policy to keep residents informed and to agree new timeframes.
  7. After the resident’s contacted us, we asked the landlord on 11 October 2022 to send its stage 2 response to her within 10 days. The stage 2 outcome was issued on 9 January 2023, which was approximately 145 days after her 2022 complaint and 60 days after our contact. The response failed to apologise for, acknowledge or explain the reasons for the delay.
  8. At stage 2 the landlord said the resident should have been informed at stage 1 that the door renewal was exempt from its complaints policy. However, her original 2021 complaint was about a broken rear door lock and the consequent risks to residents, and not about the planned section 20 works, which is what its stage 1 response focussed on. Therefore, it failed to address her specific concerns in stage 1 about security and the broken lock. Had the landlord engaged at stage 2 by reviewing her primary concerns, it would have realised the stage 1 response had not adequately addressed them.
  9. The landlord informed this Service on 13 November 2023 that having reviewed its actions, it had “identified that further compensation would be appropriate” in the sum of £500. However, it is noted it did not offer the compensation until after this Service contacted it on 9 April 2024 requesting evidence around the offer and response. By proactively offering the compensation at the earliest date, it would have shown a willingness to make things right and helped to restore trust with the resident.
  10. The delays at stage 1 and 2 led to an additional 125 days of delay within the process preventing the resident exhausting the landlord’s complaints process and bringing her matter to us for investigation. This was compounded by the lack of timeframes for the stage 2 response extensions. Additional failings meant there was no comprehensive investigation and review of her complaint (eg no stage 1 process for her June 2022 complaint). Its complaint handling was unreasonable and unfair to the resident. While it upheld her complaints at both stages and offered £350 for poor complaint handling, it has not adequately apologised for complaint handling failures or the detriment to her. The evidence shows she regularly chased the stage 2 response. The resident had told this Service the experience “left me exhausted and brought me to breaking point”. Taking all factors into account, this Service finds maladministration.

Record keeping

  1. The landlord’s record keeping indicates considerable issues. We asked it to provide evidence in the form of, for example, the resident’s reports, all correspondence and contact notes, repair logs, visit records and inspection reports. The evidence provided contains omissions including but not exclusively:
    1. Written confirmation to the resident of stage 2 outcome extensions (eg 30 June, 28 July, 26 August, 11 and 28 September 2022).
    2. Inspection records or records confirming the authorisation of the letterbox relocation in 2020.
    3. The inspection record for the letterbox relocation in autumn 2022.
    4. Call records (eg discussions with surveyor, in or around December 2022, about the decision not to relocate the letterbox).
    5. Limited repair records, including for its contractors, in respect of the remedial works (eg door repairs).
    6. Correspondence to residents about work schedules along with correspondence from its contractors about work to be done and start dates.
  2. This Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information finds poor record keeping is a key factor in landlord failures around “repairs service and in complaints”. It states “records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why” with records being clear and timely, accurately recording decisions and the reasons for them.
  3. The landlord has told this Service it accepts there has been poor record keeping by it. It has since put in place new procedures including a new centralised system to store correspondence; create and track tasks; and record resident and staff contact so residents can be “given real time updates on repairs and outstanding actions”.
  4. This investigation used information provided by the resident and references to events within the landlord’s wider evidence to create a chronology. The landlord was not able to provide the relevant information when asked and it has acknowledged poor record keeping. A landlord must keep a clear, accurate and easily accessible record of contacts and repairs to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude an action took place or the landlord followed its own policies. The landlord states it has learnt from its mistakes by implementing a new system to store records “much more efficiently” to “prevent any concerns going unanswered, or commitments not being fulfilled”. While this is commendable and shows a proactive approach to remedying mistakes, overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure by the landlord for poor record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of cyclical maintenance works.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal doors.
    3. Service failure in the landlord’s response to a request for the relocation of a letterbox.
    4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
    5. Service failure in the landlord’s poor record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £1300. The compensation must be paid to the resident and not offset against any debts owed to the landlord. This figure includes the landlord’s redress offer of £810 if it has not made this payment already. The compensation comprises:
      1. £250 for its handling of cyclical maintenance works. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of time and trouble and inconvenience.
      2. £500 for its handling of handling of repairs to the communal doors. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of distress, time and trouble and inconvenience.
      3. £50 for its response to a request for the relocation of letterboxes. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of frustration and time and trouble.
      4. £500 for its complaint handling. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of distress, time and trouble and inconvenience.
      5. £100 for its poor record keeping.
    2. Write an apology to the resident for the failures in its service. The landlord’s apology should:
    1. Acknowledge the failings identified.
    2. Accept responsibility for it.
    3. Where appropriate, include assurances that the same failings should not occur again and set out what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence.
  2. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 10 weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Review the learning from this case and arrange additional training on complaint handling to ensure an adequate oversight system is put in place so any identified improvements are implemented, in its day to day operations, to include:
      1. Complaint handlers to adequately differentiate between new complaints and escalation requests.
      2. Adherence to response timescales in line with its complaints policy.
    2. Put in place a process for the systematic provision of relevant records of planned works to this Service in response to investigation information requests.